The Captivity of Healthcare

This post is in response to Jame's post.

     Although it may be tragic that 45 million are uninsured residents, I disagree with you.  You assert that it is unfair for some to be denied a doctor’s visit.  You are right to say it is unfair, but unfortunately life is not fair.  Ultimately, perfect fairness is the absence of freedom.  If everyone received the same wages, had universal health care, wore the same cloths, and ate the same food, America would be a perfectly fair society.  Nevertheless, it would be void of freedom.  Completely fair societies have been attempted in Russia and Cuba.  However, they have demonstrated the truth in George Orwell’s famous statement from The Animal Farm that says “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  Human nature prevents enforcers of fairness from remaining equal to their subjects.  For example, all Americans will eventually be forced to buy universal healthcare under ObamaCare except for the members of Congress.  If ObamaCare is so wonderful, why is congress not forced to buy it as well?
     I claim it is unfair that I do not own an ipad like my neighbor, because I do not have the funds.  However, just because it is unfair does not mean that I deserve an ipad or any convenience. You say “Everyone deserves to get help when they really need it.”  I disagree.  First of all who is everyone? Americans, residents, all people? If a terrorist needs health care in America should we give it to him?  What about a citizen running from the law? Secondly,  the right of people to get healthcare is not in the Bill or Rights.  We do not deserve help for the same reason we do not deserve ipads.  This does not mean that the people in need should not receive help.  These people need assistance, but not through the government.  Individuals, charities, and churches are better suited to support these families in need. 

The Goverment Needs a Diet

    The Founding Fathers gave the United States government many responsibilities.  However, health issues are not part of government functions.  The Government should not command the American people to follow their position on dietary and medical advise.
  The Nixon administration demonstrated that the government is not capable of taking care of Americans health needs.  In 1971 under President Nixon’s desire, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, which led to the war on Cancer.  Ned Rice points out that “In 1975, 19.2 percent of all U.S. deaths were from cancer. In 2002, 22.8 percent of all U.S.”   After billions of dollars spent on research that did not succeed, Ned Rice concludes that, “It’s time to face the fact that the war on cancer is over, and that cancer has won.”  At least, this example shows that the government has not always been successful in its efforts of keeping the American people safe. The failure of war on cancer verifies that the government cannot efficiently or effectively control health problems. 

    
    From the early 1900’s, the government has tried to tell the American people what is healthiest foods for them.  However, their dietary advise changes frequently.  About twenty years ago the USDA produced the food pyramid which suggested that carbohydrates should compromise the majority of an American’s diet.  This year the USDA came out with “The plate and the moon” which is supposed to replace food triangle. The latest food plan (above) shows a greater balance of food types than the earlier carbohydrate heavy pyramid.  In just two decades, the food plan administered by the government has changed dramatically.  Nutritionists, doctors, and scientists bicker over what a healthy diet consists of.  For example, although popular, low fat diets are challenged by many.  As times change, so does the health consensus.  At one point in time, refined white four was extolled at extremely healthy, but now it is almost universally regarded with contempt.  Continually changing, dietary health is an extremely fickle subject.  The government should not tell us what to eat and what not to eat.  They have science to support them, but scientist are in disagreement.  And, perhaps tomorrow new break through experiments will prove that are latest government mandated food plan is defective.
    In America, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves or consult specialists what is best for their health.  Government interference is not helpful and is a waste of federal dollars. 

Illegal Immigrants

This is written in response to James' article "Immigration."
  James is right.  The federal government wastes too much money on immigrants.  However, the waste is not in keeping the immigrants out, as he suggests, but in keeping them in.  America gives a conflicting message to immigrants. It tells them to not come illegally, but if you do, there is no problem.  We can help you.  Illegal immigrants are not solely to blame.  The government could be more efficient at screening the immigrants.  The organization FAIR reported that federal, state, and local governments annually spend approximately a staggering $113 billion on immigrants in America.   
Almost half of this expenditure comes from education of illegal alien children.  Other expenses are welfare, medicine, justice, and public Assistance.  Although 8.5 billion may be “whopping,” it does not even come close to challenging the expenditure wasted on keeping them here.
                Without a doubt, I agree that immigrants are invaluable to American society.  Nevertheless, they have the duty to follow the law of the country they want to be a part of.  James says, “Instead of spending all this money trying to keep them out, why don’t we just let them in?” However, much more money is spent on keeping immigrants in. Why not stop and keep them out?
                James makes an extreme generalization, “They’re just here to find a job and making some money trying to support their children, wives, and families.”  No doubt, the majority immigrants have good intentions, but such a wide generalization is uncalled for.  James justifies their illegal actions by their goal to support their families.  While supporting one’s family is a noble goal, illegal activity should be avoided.  When a thief steels ham from HEB, should his illegal activity be justified by his willingness to support for his family? The end does not justify the means.
                I also agree that “They’re no more different than any of us Americans.” They are living human beings that have as much right to breath air as you or I do.  I believe that all men are created equal and are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights.  My advise to the millions of honest immigrants would be this: hire immigration lawyers to help them legally claim their citizenship or residence.  James accuses people who do not think as he does to be heartless. But I want nothing but the best for these people and this country.  I want to see them become legal immigrants, legal residents, and legal citizens.  I want to see a nation which laws are followed.

An Arcane Electoral College

    When the Founding Fathers laid the foundation for America, they wanted to avoid the danger of  “mob rule.”  The safeguards against the tyranny of the majority included electing representatives to filter popular thought and electing the president through the Electoral College.  Without the electoral college, America would chose its president in the fashion of a direct democracy.  By giving the people the complete power to chose the president, an abolition of the electoral college demolishes the precautions implemented by the founders against the tyranny of the 51 percent.  The Electoral College has the power to make decisions contrary to the voice of the people if they deem it foolish.  For example, if the majority of people elected a president who would take money away from rich to give to the poor, the Electoral College would have the power to ignore the popular vote and using their wisdom elect a president who they consider as a better leader.
    While the Electoral College takes power away from the people, it gives it to the states.  Congressmen Ron Paul points out the danger of throwing away the Electoral College by saying that, “A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states!”  Because the densely populated states would have the upper hand, in a sans-Electoral College only a few states could control the election of the president.  Delegating the authority of electing the president to the states, the Electoral College gives smaller states a slim disproportional advantage over the larger states.  By placing a limit on the power of large states and their interests, the Electoral College protects the smaller states.
    If this is the reason for the Electoral College, the question of whether it is still applicable remains.  Some protest the Electoral College by saying that it is arcane and unnecessarily confusing.  Challengers of the Electoral College complain about the disproportional nature of the  system.  Applying the same logic to congress, the senate should be abolished, because it also disproportionately represents the American people with two senators per state no matter what the  population.  Consistent opponents will recognize that criticism of the Electoral College inadvertently leads to criticism of the structure of the Senate.  Nevertheless, many doubt the propriety of a pure or direct democracy, though some support it.  The discarding of the safeguards implemented by the founders would prove to be detrimental to the nation.
    Advocates of the Electoral College must make one large assumption that the electors are more knowledgeable and wiser than the public.  If the electors have the same intelligence and understanding as the people, there is no point in having an Electoral College.  The same is true of congress.  When the Founding Fathers formed the American government, they assumed that the American people would choose men to lead them that are more knowledgeable and experienced than themselves.
    Nonetheless, in theory the Electoral College protects and gives voice to the diminutive states.  At the same time, it grants more power to the individual states rather than the people in order to avoid the tyranny of the 51 percent.

Protecting Life for Women and Children

    Steve Benen clearly wrote the article, “The poorly-named ‘Protect Life Act’” to a like-minded audience.  His purpose is to complain about the conduct of the Republicans, not to convince someone that opposes him.  He believes that the Protect Life Act will ironically cause the death of many women.
    Benen reprimands the GOP for not focusing on jobs bills, but ‘trivial’ anti-abortion legislation.  The social issue of abortion, however trivial in Benen’s perception, is profound for Republicans.  What he calls a culture war, to the Republicans is a war to save American lives.  I cannot expect Benen to sympathize with the Republicans, but I wish he could at least recognize why Republicans are so concerned with the issue.  On the other hand, Republicans must also recognize and deal patiently with Democrats who view the issue with apathy.  Taking into consideration his audience, Benen’s pejorative language is acceptable, but calling the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act odious and the Protect Life Act trivial will not sit well with the opposition.
    Benen’s second paragraph infers that Republicans are promoting this bill solely because they promised critical voters that they would fight to end the federal funding of abortion.  Perhaps, he is correct, but he does not elaborate or support this speculation.  Benen’s comment is not backed up by fact.  He could easily make the argument that the Republicans cannot expect to pass this bill over the threat of President Obama’s veto.   As a futile effort,  Republican’s Protect Life Act may be considered a waste of time; however, he makes no such comment.  
    Benen accurately states the position of the Protect Life Act: “Proponents want to empower hospitals to simply let the woman die.”  Under this act, if a woman’s life was endangered because of her pregnancy, she would be denied the option of abortion; however, like many other pro-abortion advocates, Benen spends time on this extremely rare case.   Because of scientific innovations in the medical field, the awful case where a woman must choose between her own life or the life her child is extremely rare.  By examining this case, Benen attempts to argue that this obscure case would be common.  In his understanding, the Protect life bill actually would kill more people.  Benen assumes that an unborn child is not a human and does not deserve human rights.  Given his audience, this assumption is most likely shared by the majority of his readers.  However, if one assumes a pre-born child is human, this opposition would note that the death rates among little ones (fetus in Greek) significantly out numbers the deaths of mothers during pregnancy.  Nevertheless, an anti-abortionist and pro-abortionist will have a difficult time in  debating when their assumptions are so different.  The Dawn Laguens statement assumes that abortions, unlike live births, are beneficial to women's health.  The opposition would question this belief. 
    Although the last two assumptions given in this article are shared by the author and his readers, their validity is presupposed.  His reasoning begins with assumptions considered false to many. Neither can a little one cannot be both human and inhuman, nor can abortion be safer than birth and birth be safer than abortion.  Benen chooses not to deal with the truth or even attack the opposition.  Instead of forming concessive arguments against his opposition, Benen preaches to his choir by merely telling his audience what they already know and what they want to hear.  He does not contribute to the debate or empower his readers to enter the argument.

An "Egghead and Blockheads" Critique

    A New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, criticizes the Republican party and its leaders in the article “Egghead and Blockheads.”  Initially, she argues that Republicans are dumb, and secondly she censures the Republicans for boasting of their rejection of intellectualism.  However interesting to read, Dowd’s arguments are devoid of sound reasoning.
    In the article, Dowd draws an analogy between an intellectual know-it-all and stupid rough cowboy to the Democrats and Republicans, respectively.  She does not bother to convince her audience that Democrats are eggheads; however, she spends considerable time accusing the Republicans of being blockheads.  She reveals Republican candidate Rick Perry’s faulty grades and failure in college.
    If intellect is measured by collegiate success, Dowd has a point.  On the other hand,  many great leaders in American history never attended college or achieved high grades.  When the country was just beginning, men like Patrick Henry, who never received a formal education but was nonetheless extremely bright, aided in creating our nation.  General Ulysses S. Grant  attended the United States military academy at West Point; he, like Perry, did not excel in his studies, but failing grades did not stop him from influencing the course of the Civil War.  Perry is neither a second Henry, nor a second Grant, but it is safe to say that intellect can still exist with non-existent or failing grades.
    Dowd quotes a Perry statement she does not understand, not to reveal her ignorance, but to show that Perry does not know what he is talking about.  Perry said, “God uses broken people to reach a broken world;” the context in which the statement was given would pour light on the subject, but this statement is not uncommon.  The belief that God can use imperfect people to help an imperfect world is rooted in Christianity.
    Dowd uses the fallacy Ad Hominem, to the man, instead of questioning Perry’s policies or conduct; by calling him stupid, she attacks his character.  Although entertaining to read, her argument when examined is nasty and irrational.  She successfully tore Perry apart, but the audience must examine the method she used.  Her arguments were based solely on belittling him not on his arguments.
    She concludes the article by pointing out that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and all other Republicans share the pride of stupidity that Perry wears.  If it were established that all three Republican leaders were completely brainless, an illogical generalization of the Republican party is made when she says all Republicans are like them.
      In this article, Dowd assumes that intellect comes from good grades, attacks Perry personally, and generalizes a whole party with three examples.   Her article is at best entertaining but not a display of sound reasoning in rhetoric.

"You Can't Tax the Rich!"

    In “You Can't Tax the Rich ,” Thomas Sowell’s compelling arguments refute the so-called benefits of high tax rates on the rich.   By examining the errors that occurred in the 1920’s, Sowell looks to American history for his defense.  In the 1920’s, the rich were taxed at a high rate; however, they escaped the tax collectors, and the government was left empty handed.  The rich can use their resources to place their money in tax-exempt securities or over seas where the government cannot touch their money.   As a result, small businesses, which are the largest new job creators, take the burden instead of the rich; so, when the rich are taxed, small businesses and the economy suffer the most. Sowell calls his audience to learn from history and not make the same mistake.